Official Helium Community - hip-80-simplifying-dao-utility-score

HIP 80: Simplifying the DAO Utility Score Author: @ferebee Start Date: 2023-03-29 Category: Economic, Technical Original HIP PR: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/597 Tracking Issue: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/599 Summary HIP-51 specifies the DAO Utility Score, which determines the distribution of HNT among all Helium subDAOs. Its purpose is to incentivize current and future subDAOs to grow the value of their services provided through the Helium DAO while also protecting the investment of the LoRa Hotspots that participated from the start to the launch of the Helium network of networks. As the implementation of HIP-70 has progressed, multiple theoretical and practical drawbacks of the DAO Utility Score as specified in HIP-51 have become apparent. They threaten the interests of the existing IOT and MOBILE subDAOs, possible future subDAOs, and the Helium DAO as a whole. To solve these problems, HIP-80 proposes a new, simplified DAO Utility Score, which is easier to understand and protects the interests of all participants. The new Score no longer considers the number of Hotspots and their onboarding fees but only the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT. Additionally, the IOT subDAO receives an explicit guarding factor to ensure its continued funding. Because of this, the onboarding fee is no longer relevant to the new Score and all subDAO onboarding fees are reduced universally to $5 per Hotspot. A Hotspot must burn an onboarding fee towards each subDAO in which it participates. Motivation The existing definition of DAO Utility Score as specified in HIP-51 is ambiguous and difficult to understand. Simplifying it will make it more approachable and reduce the probability of unintended consequences. In addition, certain intents of HIP-51 are not fully realized by the existing Score definition. On the one hand, due to an oversight in the implementation of HIP-53, no onboarding fees have ever been burned towards the MOBILE subDAO. Therefore, at launch, the DAO Utility Score of the MOBILE subDAO as defined in HIP-51 would be eclipsed by the IOT subDAO, so that much less HNT than intended would initially be distributed to the MOBILE subDAO. This could limit the growth of MOBILE, which is important to the further development of the Helium Flywheel, and, thus to IOT as well. On the other hand, calculations show that the IOT subDAO risks being marginalized by the MOBILE subDAO in the medium term under the existing Score if current trends continue. This could cause nearly all HNT to be distributed to the subDAO treasury of the MOBILE subDAO, which would run counter to the intent of HIP-51 and could limit the further development of IOT. This threatens the health of the Helium DAO as a whole, as IOT is expected to deliver a significant contribution to the Helium DAO over the longer term. With its V factor, the existing DAO Utility Score gives far more weight to the amount of veHNT delegated to a subDAO than to any other factor. This would enable a single large investor to favor a single subDAO disproportionately with a large veHNT delegation and would prioritize economic incentives for delegation while marginalizing the importance of network growth and utility. Finally, if a new DAO Utility Score can be defined that does not rely on the number of Hotspots in a subDAO and their onboarding fees, the onboarding fee itself loses most of its importance. New types of low-cost Hotspots have been proposed for both IOT and MOBILE. The traditional onboarding fee of $40 would make up a large portion of the retail cost of these Hotspots. Reducing the onboarding fee can significantly reduce their cost and encourage the adoption of these new devices, contributing to the success of both networks. Rendered View https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0080-simplifying-dao-utility-score.md

Introduce new DAO Utility Score by ferebee · Pull Request #597 · he...

After discussions with the HIP-51 team, a new simplified calculation of the DAO Utility Score is presented that better aligns the interests of DAO participants.

HIP 80: Simplifying the DAO Utility Score · Issue #599 · helium/HIP

HIP 80: Simplifying the DAO Utility Score Author: @ferebee Start Date: 2023-03-29 Category: Economic, Technical Original HIP PR: #597 Tracking Issue: #599 Summary HIP-51 specifies the DAO Utility S...

HIP/0080-simplifying-dao-utility-score.md at main · helium/HIP

Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.

valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 8:30 AM

reading as we speak, @ferebee what made you choose 50 as the floor and what is the current burn rate for IOT? or just post a source i have had a heck of a time finding it in the past (edited)

Without onboarding fees there is no expenditure that stops subDAOs from leaving as they see fit once they have gamed the Helium DAO sufficiently.

The Floor of 50 is intended to give IOT a “founder’s benefit”, as was promised in the discussions leading up to HIP-51. 50 is a bit arbitrary, but it works out so IOT is treated as if it were burning $75,000/month. The idea is that MOBILE should be able to pass that soon if it works out. IOT currently burns something around $1,500/month AFAIK. ( @rawrmaan is the expert on that AFAIK.) OTOH, IOT has 4+ years to reach $75,000. Otherwise, it has bigger problems.

also will the 5$ onboard go toward the DC of the subdao? (edited)

groot

Without onboarding fees there is no expenditure that stops subDAOs from leaving as they see fit once they have gamed the Helium DAO sufficiently.

I don’t see that as an important consideration. IOT needs to drop the fee for the $99 Hotspots that are already ready to go. capcom has hinted at $99 Hotspots for MOBILE using Wi-Fi, the same applies there. OTOH, if MOBILE is running on $5,000–$25,000 setups, the onboarding fee is irrelevant to the question of whether it will want to leave Helium DAO.

gateholder

also will the 5$ onboard go toward the DC of the subdao? (edited)

No, the onboarding fee is just a separate fee as it is now.

IOT also burned a hefty amount of DC for onboarding that the rest isn’t going to so some “founder” benefits are reasonable

ferebee

I don’t see that as an important consideration. IOT needs to drop the fee for the $99 Hotspots that are already ready to go. capcom has hinted at $99 Hotspots for MOBILE using Wi-Fi, the same applies there. OTOH, if MOBILE is running on $5,000–$25,000 setups, the onboarding fee is irrelevant to the question of whether it will want to leave Helium DAO.

I’m not just talking about MOBILE though as I expect them to act in good faith. There will hopefully be more subDAOs in the future and not all of them will be good actors

We’ll slash them if they try to eff us. (edited)

groot

I’m not just talking about MOBILE though as I expect them to act in good faith. There will hopefully be more subDAOs in the future and not all of them will be good actors

I think its actually better for them to have to "stake/bond" something that they can get back but must cover some % of there earnings (edited)

The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80

ferebee

The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80

true but they are in orbit of each other

ferebee

We’ll slash them if they try to eff us. (edited)

There might be nothing left to slash

ferebee

The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80

Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP

NOTE: @rawrmaan and @JMF contributed to this HIP. JMF notably proposed taking the square root of veHNT, an important consideration to prevent a whale from slamming the Utility Score against a wall. They are coauthors and will be listed as such in an update. Just didn’t get that sorted over the weekend.

1

groot

Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP

well its still 5$s

groot

Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP

All subDAOs must use $5. The only remaining purpose of the fee is to protect Helium DAO from spam.

ferebee

All subDAOs must use $5. The only remaining purpose of the fee is to protect Helium DAO from spam.

It has some implications but I’ll stick to on topic here coolcry

The Helium DAO could and probably should switch that to a minimum of $5 with each subDAO having flex from there. It effectively gives the Helium DAO the flexibility in the future. (edited)

valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 8:46 AM

OFC we could make it a minimum. OTOH there will be other fees in some cases, some external to the Helium DAO, such as paying to have an outdoor 5G installation approved, or LoRa location assert. subDAOs have free rein there anyway.

A subDAO has no incentive to set those fees (edited)

My reading of HIP-51 is that the DAOs intent is to let subDAOs do whatever they want in that respect, subject to the general provision that any subDAO attempting to game HNT distribution may have its HNT reserves slashed by DAO governance.

If we operate under the assumption that more gateways is better for a subDAO their onboarding fees should be as low as possible since it is essentially waste now that it doesn’t help the utility score.

08:54

Maybe the simplicity that this HIP proposes is better after all

1

groot

Maybe the simplicity that this HIP proposes is better after all

I think that a future hip does need to happen that makes new subdao's have skin in the game, that can scale with success just a thought but I do tend to agree that the simpler the better

gateholder

I think that a future hip does need to happen that makes new subdao's have skin in the game, that can scale with success just a thought but I do tend to agree that the simpler the better

I have no quarrel with that at all, quite the contrary. Go start writing!

I’m sorry but the LoRa hotspots earned 100% of the HNT for almost 4 years. If there is no data transfer yet why should we hold back another network that does burn HNT?

2

If there’s more DC burn, the value of the smaller number of HNT should be higher so it’ll balance itself out.

Max - Just Max

I’m sorry but the LoRa hotspots earned 100% of the HNT for almost 4 years. If there is no data transfer yet why should we hold back another network that does burn HNT?

The question you're asking is not a change in this HIP. It's functionally the same as HIP 51. This protection was widely voted for by the community

Okay but we all agree HIP-51 did a poor job of defining value for each subDAO so we can hide behind “well HIP-51 was that way” for some pieces and not others (edited)

09:50

Especially the piece that we are removing

Here's a draft model showing some possible numbers, so you can compare HIP-51 and HIP-80 results.Note this shows the launch problem of MOBILE, which will probably be stuck at a low score for quite some time under HIP-51. Those 10,000 Hotspots are out there with unpaid onboarding fees. (edited)

09:52

Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51

Also note that the "drag" on MOBILE by protecting IOT is not that bad. 89 vs. 93% makes less of a difference than 11 vs. 7%.

Max - Just Max

Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51

One view is that the original LoRa Hotspot owners agreed to welcome additional subDAOs into the Helium DAO based on the idea that they would retain a “founders bonus”. Also known as “don’t rug your investors”, which applies to HST as well. In that sense, protecting the existing LoRa network is “equitable”.

2

Max - Just Max

Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51

I think it's fairly well known that the IOT network will take 5-10 years to fully ramp up and be sustainable. I argued for 2028 personally. The "subsidy" is also so low that the negative effect on other subDAOs is negligible IMO

Yea but LoRa earned more than 50% of the HNT and subDAOs make that HNT more valuable

Doesn't really matter how much they earned in the past. They need ongoing funding for the network to continue to exist

That’s what veHNT delegation is for

Partially, yes. We've also dampened the effect of that in this HIP

Max - Just Max

Yea but LoRa earned more than 50% of the HNT and subDAOs make that HNT more valuable

Of course. Those of us who own HNT are probably less worried about ongoing LoRa rewards from that point of view. But many LoRa builders sold a good portion of their earnings to cover costs.

So we need to subsidize the people who sold their share?

10:01

Wtf kind of reasoning is that?

1

It's also arguable that veHNT delegation will be determined mostly by market forces--i.e. people will move stake wherever it's more profitable to sell the token

But if those that vote for this HIP agree that IOT needs more runway then they’ll likely also delegate their veHNT towards the IOT subDAO

10:03

Mostly because the HNT holders own an outsized percentage of the IOT subDAO and will delegate towards the subDAO that they have the most exposure

I think that's purely conjecture. You can't really know how people will delegate. Hence the need for the floor to protect IOT

10:04

Even with the floor, if everyone delegates to MOBILE, IOT will be in a tough spot

Should Mobile get a flow because it came in before WiFi Dabba?

Thanks all, I gotta run! Thanks @rawrmaan for taking questions. I’ll be back tomorrow!

1

Max - Just Max

Should Mobile get a flow because it came in before WiFi Dabba?

No, IOT is the only special case

Mobile will take a few years to be rolled out, by your logic it should be given until 2027 to get data transfer too

No way--I see mobile subDAO surpassing $75k/mo in no time flat

10:06

That's only 5TB per day on the whole network

So then give it a floor of $75k too

10:07

It shouldn’t matter, right?

Yes, you could give it a floor, but I don't really see the point since, as you're saying, it won't matter

It’s just a weird argument to say one subDAO should get protections but other that generate revenue faster, shouldn’t. (edited)

Not really IMO. It's the original subDAO that everyone signed up for, and it's exactly because it can't generate revenue quickly that it deserves protection. The inception of the Helium IOT is a one-off. It can't be replicated. So we need to protect it at least somewhat until it can reach its potential in order to not waste the moat we've built. I think the protection offered is more than reasonable, and will be irrelevant quickly (from the standpoint of negatively impacting MOBILE) with the revenue that MOBILE generates (edited)

The 450k x $40 was also dropped so it’s not like this is completely one sided

ferebee

Here's a draft model showing some possible numbers, so you can compare HIP-51 and HIP-80 results.Note this shows the launch problem of MOBILE, which will probably be stuck at a low score for quite some time under HIP-51. Those 10,000 Hotspots are out there with unpaid onboarding fees. (edited)

something in the math seems wrong here

HNT’s value shot up with the announcement of 5G though. 5G had a huge hand in 1 million hotspots burning $50 million worth of HNT. I think we forget that context

10:12

I’m also arguing this as someone with way more IOT exposure than mobile exposure. I feel this arbitrary protection date creates a system of unfair subDAO treatment that we shouldn’t allow

Was there a huge flaw in total DC burn for onboarding to subDAO with a minimum burn per device for all subDAOs method?

Multiple flaws. See #hip-78-mobile-subdao-onboarding-fees

10:33

It's unnecessarily complex to implement as well

Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:

Max - Just Max

I’m also arguing this as someone with way more IOT exposure than mobile exposure. I feel this arbitrary protection date creates a system of unfair subDAO treatment that we shouldn’t allow

true and i'm probably the opposite, with way more MOBILE exposure, (just checking my Bias) but I always feel like there needs to be incentive the way I see improving this is just add a multiplier to IOT number example is just multiply the IOT DNS by some factor like 5-10 and you get there with still incentivizing competition

Jay M.

Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:

I don't want to rehash all the arguments there, but you can view them in the #hip-51-helium-dao backscroll (warning very huge)

Jay M.

Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:

ya this was discussed but this is one of the fairest way (so far) im just trying to get a grasp for what it will mean

rawrmaan

That's only 5TB per day on the whole network

How many subscribers is that approximately?

I know, I was there. Isn't this HIP rehashing HIP51 anyway?

Maybe a tiny part of it

I don’t think we’ll be passing anywhere near $75k in data on mobile anytime soon. A great majority of traffic will be going through T-Mobile and not helium radios

2

Dawgnuts

How many subscribers is that approximately?

That's hard to approximate as there are multiple factors. It matters not only how many subscribers there are, but what % of those subscribers' daily usage goes through Helium hotspots (as opposed to, say, T-Mo for Helium Mobile plans). That figure will change as 5G hotspots become more ubiquitous (edited)

It’s far fetched to think that more then 25% data being moved by helium mobile will be on helium 5g radios

I see a lot less opposition to it now given the current (word I'm not allowed to say) of HNT.

I’d guess it will be less than 10% (edited)

1

But that's all I have to add. I'll let the bigger brains get back to it.

I would say something like 0.5-2% to start

10:39

But that's a total guess

So how are you getting to $75k a month? How many subscribers is that if 2% of their data is being passed through helium 5g

10:40

I think it’s a gross overestimation on how much data will be passed through 5g radios

1

The main differentiator between IOT and MOBILE subDAO in terms of this HIP is ability to onboard usage. The difficulty of growing MOBILE usage is basically nothing compared to growing IOT usage, where entire new fleets of hardware need to be deployed in the millions in highly specialized use cases

Dawgnuts

So how are you getting to $75k a month? How many subscribers is that if 2% of their data is being passed through helium 5g

75k/mo is an approximation of the same level of protection the original HIP 51 would have provided. It's only 30x the current usage

10:41

Plus, we need to wait for updated usage figures from the packet router. The current data is not reliable (edited)

rawrmaan

The main differentiator between IOT and MOBILE subDAO in terms of this HIP is ability to onboard usage. The difficulty of growing MOBILE usage is basically nothing compared to growing IOT usage, where entire new fleets of hardware need to be deployed in the millions in highly specialized use cases

That’s great in theory but I’m not sure if you’ve looked at the competitive landscape of mobile mvnos over the last 6-12 months

It's tough being an MVNO no doubt. I saw T-Mo acquired Mint, which will be good for competing MVNOs but bad for customers

Dawgnuts

I don’t think we’ll be passing anywhere near $75k in data on mobile anytime soon. A great majority of traffic will be going through T-Mobile and not helium radios

so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)

gateholder

so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)

and please some one check my math

rawrmaan

Multiple flaws. See #hip-78-mobile-subdao-onboarding-fees

Thanks. I was totally unaware of the channel I commented in multiple times. Can you please tell me what issues you as an author see with that implementation over this one?

10:48

I’m also confused how tallying the amount of DC burned for onboarding related expenses is too complex. I’m not a coder but in VBA you can do a sumif function. Not sure if that helps

gateholder

so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)

Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused

Max - Just Max

I’m also confused how tallying the amount of DC burned for onboarding related expenses is too complex. I’m not a coder but in VBA you can do a sumif function. Not sure if that helps

Not that it's "too complex", just unnecessarily complex. Especially given the issue with MOBILE hotspots not being paid for. IMO the previous DAO Utility Score was overly complicated. More complexity = less shared understanding and more edge cases that could lead to exploits or gaming (edited)

Dawgnuts

Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused

IOT and MOBILE have different prices per GB, you can't compare the amount of data transmitted directly like that (edited)

Dawgnuts

Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused

no mobile networks like tmobile, att, and verizon combined move about that much per month

Ah, the comparison is off then, because we'd need 5TB per day for MOBILE to reach $75k/mo, not 5TB/mo

11:00

By my math, using the 2.3EB/mo number quoted above, MOBILE subDAO would need 0.0065% of data traffic to reach $75k/mo

1

We’re still discounting that from a dollar perspective IOT is unaffected by other subDAOs passing a bunch of data, and if anything, IOT gets more value from other subDAOs killing it

so i used different math for the second part its (17.4x35000x.25)/30 (user avg month x subscribers x usage over Tmobile)/30 actaully does get you to 5 TB a day so that number seems right (edited)

1

Do we want to pander to the idiots that only care about internet points in a vacuum or do we want to have a successful disrupter?

I think you may have lost me there Max--not sure what you're saying

The number of HNT in the treasury is irrelevant if it’s driven by network value. More burn means higher price.

rawrmaan

By my math, using the 2.3EB/mo number quoted above, MOBILE subDAO would need 0.0065% of data traffic to reach $75k/mo

Which looks like a small number. But we’re talking about the actual 5g radios traffic only not all of helium mobile. I think that is a huge number

The same amount of dollars flow into IOT regardless

Dawgnuts

Which looks like a small number. But we’re talking about the actual 5g radios traffic only not all of helium mobile. I think that is a huge number

You've gotta remember, though, that data usage is on an exponential trend upwards. In addition, Helium 5G will capture the entire market in certain underserved areas, which will drive a disproportionate amount of value

Max - Just Max

The same amount of dollars flow into IOT regardless

it just change one aspect the number still does change based on how well MOBILE does (edited)

The better mobile does the more valuable IOT’s HNT is worth.

Yes, that's taken into account

11:08

Just to put my stance out there: I could absolutely see an argument for adding a floor to MOBILE as well to start, as long as it's within the 3-6x range lower than IOT (similar to what existed in HIP 51)

1

esp since there will be a time between migration and helium mobile/ foundation sims launching ...

rawrmaan

Just to put my stance out there: I could absolutely see an argument for adding a floor to MOBILE as well to start, as long as it's within the 3-6x range lower than IOT (similar to what existed in HIP 51)

so why not just make it 20k per month problem solved?

gateholder

so why not just make it 20k per month problem solved?

I would defer to @ferebee (who unfortunately isn't around for the rest of the day) on this point

1

I just think the floor is relatively unnecessary

11:12

And we shouldn’t add arbitrary things based on arbitrary calcs at the 11th hour

2

If you don't have the floor, IOT gets crushed, and fast

Crush in HNT terms, not in dollar terms

And this is not arbitrary. It's simply a different implementation of the same protections agreed to in HIP 51

11:12

It's not new, and it's not a surprise or 11th hour addition

The date is arbitrary though

rawrmaan

If you don't have the floor, IOT gets crushed, and fast

I agree with this

Max - Just Max

Crush in HNT terms, not in dollar terms

You can't prove this. Your argument relies heavily on market forces which are out of our control

If the market cap stays the same but more HNT is burned than is emitted then the price goes up

Theoretically, but there's no guarantee

11:14

We need to stay within the realm of what we can control

There is no scenario in which an exponential increase in DC burn happens and there is no increase in price

11:15

The market is the market but you can strip that away in both scenarios because it’s a constant

There's also no scenario in which exponential increase in DC burn happens and MOBILE subDAO doesn't gain a massive advantage in the utility score

It should get a massive advantage though

We need the floor because of the pre-exponential days, not for when exponential growth happens. At that point, the floor is unnecessary

But the floor hurts the third subDAO

11:16

Unless we’re just going to concede there will only be 2 then fine

Max - Just Max

But the floor hurts the third subDAO

we can always work a floor into the calculation if needed?

Not any more than it hurts the second. New subDAOs will not get the same "jump start" emissions that the existing ones have. They will need to prove their value by transmitting data early and fast

If they can transmit data early and fast why be a helium subDAO or even use a token for that matter

1

Because when they do transmit data, the protocol will automatically invest in their growth

Like I’ve had this discussion with multiple founders on the pros of being a subDAO vs doing your own SPL or Polygon token and the economics make it an impossible sell

But I do think you bring up an argument against the new DAO utility score: Upstart subDAOs will not be able to gain any advantage from simply paying onboarding fees

11:19

There could be an argument for having a floor for all new subDAOs. But in that case, there would need to be a vetting process to make sure only quality ones exist

11:20

That vetting process could be the existing HIP process

There already is a vetting process. Or at least in theory there is

1

I do see your point that not having a floor removes the "bootstrapping" incentives for new subDAOs--at least mostly. They can still buy HNT and delegate but that kind of requires them to be the investor instead of the Helium DAO

The reason I like the burn based score is #1 it takes into account burn. #2 the higher the onboard burn (as set by the subDAO) the safer a subDAO is from key churning attacks and those subDAOs should get rewarded for being “safer”

The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021

Obviously opens up a whole other can of worms but I wonder what the math is on the value of a fake device. It could be a net negative to burn HNT to onboard a device to increase the score.

rawrmaan

The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021

I look at it as the fee that gets paid to Helium DAO for incubating a new project

rawrmaan

The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021

yes this is a big problem, I think that 5 might be to cheap as well most people arent going to bat an eye at 10 either

Would you rather be a subDAO with 8,000 radios or XNet with 60?

Max - Just Max

I look at it as the fee that gets paid to Helium DAO for incubating a new project

This is an interesting perspective. That is basically what it is yes

I think we for sure need some floor, call it $5. Then we allow the subDAOs to scale up and down based on the value of their hardware. $100 for a VPP subDAO is a relatively tiny increase in capex whereas $20 for a VPN is probably high. (edited)

Yeah, a base onboarding fee that subDAOs can set would be good

And we want to encourage more burn for onboarding. Whether or not it happens is another thing but we should reward subDAOs that use the onboarding fee as a proxy for network value

Max - Just Max

And we want to encourage more burn for onboarding. Whether or not it happens is another thing but we should reward subDAOs that use the onboarding fee as a proxy for network value

I guess I just don't view arbitrary burn useful

It’s not arbitrary burn

11:35

Also token burn is incredibly useful. It’s a reason for people to buy the token and gives it value.

11:35

If there was no onboarding fee you likely wouldn’t be here, gateholder

11:35

I sure wouldn’t be

Max - Just Max

Also token burn is incredibly useful. It’s a reason for people to buy the token and gives it value.

I think this is where you and I differ, to some degree I don't like just holding Tokens im much more interested in the sheer usefulness and what it is able to produce rather than just holding it hoping for the value to spike

JMF is typing

I wouldn’t be opposed to a floor on all subDAOs. Imo the $75k a month is a little high but not outrageously so.

11:43

Haha @rawrmaan

11:44

And ive also said I would support ammonium $5 activation. It makes a ton of sense

I don’t think it’s outrageous either. Just think there are better ways of capturing network value

JMF

And ive also said I would support ammonium $5 activation. It makes a ton of sense

a minimum?

Yea right now it just says all subDAOs are set at $5 until further changes.

I’m probably being far too black and white by thinking it should all be dictated by burn and the wishes of the veHNT holders (edited)

11:48

What if we set it at $40 retroactive to 8/1/19 then halved it every halving

11:48

So it would be $20 today and $10 on 8/1/23

11:50

One of the arguments for 2 year halving was the cost of hardware should have half every 2 years so halving the minimum onboard burn makes sense too

gateholder

I think this is where you and I differ, to some degree I don't like just holding Tokens im much more interested in the sheer usefulness and what it is able to produce rather than just holding it hoping for the value to spike

I get that argument but you should read multicoin’s essay on the token velocity problem.

Is there any way I can get in contact with Sean?

11:58

Sean Carey?

Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.

1. no not here

11:59

2. youre in the wrong channel

Lol

12:00

Can you help direct me?

3. we dont speak about legal matters on this discord

HIP-81 channel

4

I’m trying to get in contact with Sean because Robinhood may have accidentally sent me some of his personal private information.

Max - Just Max

I get that argument but you should read multicoin’s essay on the token velocity problem.

I think i've seen this before but yes i'm just saying that doesn't necessarily drive me as antithetical as that may be

Max - Just Max

HIP-81 channel

Thank you. Nevermind. (edited)

1

12:01

Laughing out loud.

sorry, sean is not on this discord

So no one by the name Sean Carey is here?

Wtf is going on

Max - Just Max

HIP-81 channel

that was mean (edited)

This guy isn’t here??

That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol

Ofcourse.

Carry on (edited)

Lol

12:03

Whatever.

Kennyy - 😎

That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol

I’m pretty sure he was

1

Oh was he?

12:04

Way before my time then

12:04

Ahhh

Yea. Helium originally wanted to make your pet rock connect to the internet

12:04

Thank you for the help!

Anyway, wrong channel. Try Twitter

Reason I ask is because Robinhood has accidentally sent me someone’s private information (statement) showing their account number, name, and address. And there is nothing okay about that.

1

12:06

@Max - Just Max I was able to find him. Thank you.

You’re in the wrong channel to discuss that, try contacting Robinhood

No I contact the person who may have the legal case on the company

1

12:06

But okay.

Yea, but Arman is trying to add a $75,000 floor for IOT and this is the channel for that discussion, not Robinhood

12:07

We live in a society with rules

I understand that. But it’s important I find Sean Carey and make him aware that Robinhood has sent his private information out into the public. All I was trying to do was find Sean. I did not mean any harm

2

NotPidgey

No I contact the person who may have the legal case on the company

Contact his Twitter?

13:00

We cannot discuss legal stuff here in this Discord, per the #rules

Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams

Contact his Twitter?

Correct, I will not discuss legal stuff in this server. I do not intend to. Was just looking for Sean.

NotPidgey

Correct, I will not discuss legal stuff in this server. I do not intend to. Was just looking for Sean.

Found him? Case closed.

So yeah... About that HIP80.

Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams

Found him? Case closed.

Correct. Was as simple as just finding him.

ferebee

Click to see attachment 🖼️

There is potentially an error in your math. The HIP says "the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT" but the description in the excel spreadsheet shows SQRT ( veHNT + DC/epoch ). These two things do not agree conceptually. SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) does not equal SQRT (a + b). SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) > SQRT (a + b) [when using positive numbers only] I would think the math should be SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) and that would agree with the text in the HIP. (edited)

@ferebee he’s right. They should be separate .

KeithR

There is potentially an error in your math. The HIP says "the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT" but the description in the excel spreadsheet shows SQRT ( veHNT + DC/epoch ). These two things do not agree conceptually. SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) does not equal SQRT (a + b). SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) > SQRT (a + b) [when using positive numbers only] I would think the math should be SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) and that would agree with the text in the HIP. (edited)

We’re multiplying the two. SQRT(a) * SQRT(b) = SQRT(a * b). Example, SQRT(4) * SQRT(9) = 2 * 3 = 6 = SQRT(4 * 9) = SQRT(36). The text “considers … the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT” is not intended to mean the one thing PLUS the other. Rather, it considers the one thing, and it also considers the other. LMK if you feel that is confusing, perhaps we should change the wording.

"The product of the square roots of DC Burn and veHNT"?

1

It’s simple: If it’s confusing, the text should be changed.

Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t actually write any new text right now after 8 hours of non-optional previously scheduled partying.

1

18:02

(We can’t be adding the two, as they may be in completely different ballparks. For example, there may be billions and billions of veHNT, but DC burn per epoch may be in the thousands. Multiplying them works fine.)

1

ferebee

It’s simple: If it’s confusing, the text should be changed.

Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t actually write any new text right now after 8 hours of non-optional previously scheduled partying.

The hip is well written. Accolades are warranted for the contributors. Is the 50 floor for IoT too high? Did you model that number to come up with it?

1

Thanks all for the engagement. I certainly understand that any proposal that could change the distribution of HNT between the subDAOs can be contentious. I welcome all constructive criticism of the proposed new Utility Score. “Constructive” means, if you don’t like it, please propose an alternative. It’s fine if the alternative is “just stick with HIP-51”, but in that case, do consider that on the one hand, MOBILE will be stuck with an “A factor” of 1 initially, due to the missing $400,000 of onboarding fees that haven’t been budgeted for the existing MOBILE Hotspots in the MOBILE subDAO… And on the other hand, IOT risks being marginalized over the longer term, before its potential can be realized. (And before you discount IOT, do the math of what 1 billion sensors could do, each burning one DC every five minutes. Don’t forget LoRa Class C. Will we reach that? It’s hard to say, isn’t it? Would be cool though.) If you disagree with anything in particular, it would be helpful if you could reference how it affects the rough modelling of potential outcomes I posted above. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090679775091228715

AndrewsMD

The hip is well written. Accolades are warranted for the contributors. Is the 50 floor for IoT too high? Did you model that number to come up with it?

The Floor of 50 treats IOT as if it were burning $75,000/month. We don’t actually know how much IOT is burning right now, but that is providing something like a 30x to 50x advantage to IOT at current burn rates. In other words, once LoRa burns 30–50 times what it's burning now (which is very little), the Floor factor (or “founder’s bonus”) will become irrelevant anyway. I think we can all agree that LoRa has not reached its full potential yet. In the discussions leading up to HIP-51, capcom promised that LoRa would initially be getting 90%+ of HNT. From the rough model I posted earlier, it looks like we won’t be providing more than that. And as Arman says, if MOBILE can’t do $75,000 fairly soon, we’re living on the wrong planet. (edited)

ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 6:38 PM

ferebee

The Floor of 50 treats IOT as if it were burning $75,000/month. We don’t actually know how much IOT is burning right now, but that is providing something like a 30x to 50x advantage to IOT at current burn rates. In other words, once LoRa burns 30–50 times what it's burning now (which is very little), the Floor factor (or “founder’s bonus”) will become irrelevant anyway. I think we can all agree that LoRa has not reached its full potential yet. In the discussions leading up to HIP-51, capcom promised that LoRa would initially be getting 90%+ of HNT. From the rough model I posted earlier, it looks like we won’t be providing more than that. And as Arman says, if MOBILE can’t do $75,000 fairly soon, we’re living on the wrong planet. (edited)

No such promise was made. That was just the projected result of HIP-51 with no data transfer and an expected flat delegation of veHNT

18:49

Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO

1

Max - Just Max

No such promise was made. That was just the projected result of HIP-51 with no data transfer and an expected flat delegation of veHNT

That’s not how I read capcom’s pinned post in #general. Obviously this was almost a year ago, which is a century ago in blockchain years. But I do believe this narrative shaped initial perceptions of HIP-51. (edited)

18:50

HIP-51 there was a big push towards, just vote for the general idea of subDAOs and we’ll figure out the details later. Idk that it makes much sense in this scenario to point every small detail in 51 and say we should keep it similar to 51

The point of HIP-80 is to solve several existing issues (as explained in the Motivation section) while not overriding the spirit of HIP-51, which is what people voted on. Evolution, not revolution. There is room for revolution, but that needs to be a different HIP.

We actually have a good metric for network size with burn. I’d hate to stunt that and only have one subDAO get the value

18:58

We disagree because you’re solving todays problems. Solving them well, I’ll add. I’m looking at this from the lens of “how do we convince new projects to pick helium over IOTEX”

1

The biggest risk of all, which could lead to just one subDAO getting all the HNT, is the linear V factor in the DAO Utility Score of HIP-51. As JMF pointed out, this would allow a whale delegation of veHNT to one subDAO to override all other factors. Furthermore, once a majority of veHNT is delegated to one subDAO, it becomes counterproductive for economically motivated investors to delegate to any other subDAO. That is where we get a winner-takes-all scenario. Which is why JMF proposed we change the V factor to the square root of veHNT delegation, aligned with the square root of DC burn.

Max - Just Max

We disagree because you’re solving todays problems. Solving them well, I’ll add. I’m looking at this from the lens of “how do we convince new projects to pick helium over IOTEX”

Have you considered the importance of the square root? The point of taking the square root, rather than using DC burn as a linear factor, is exactly to incentivize new subDAOs. Because of the square root, their HNT share will ramp much faster than their DC burn, so they can come up to speed quickly.

I think you misunderstood my overall point. We want to reward dc burn as much as possible. More DC burn means higher HNT price so from a pure dollar perspective the more we decouple from DC burn determining the value of a subDAO the less attractive it is to new potential subDAOs.

19:31

The other issue is the perceived favoritism that having a single subDAO receive a floor DC burn amount. I understand why it’s being done but I really think we discount the influence 5G had on the token price (specifically that DISH announcement) and the effect the token price had on the exponential growth the LoRa network saw.

19:35

Capturing the value of hardware in a given network and using dynamic HNT burn rates set by the subDAOs to onboard devices is actually a good proxy in the pre revenue days and also provides value to Helium DAO because it creates buy pressure and DC burn before there is DC burn for network usage. Think we’re making a huge mistake to totally remove the device factor in the 11th hour.

19:36

FWIW @ferebee I liked the limited scope of 78 much better. I think we can revisit this idea of a total revamp after the migration. Especially since it’ll give us a good idea about how much veHNT will be staked and how much we can expect delegation to affect utility scores

Kennyy - 😎

That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol

I’m not?

19:37

Shows what you know buddy

Sean | BlockJoy

I’m not?

This is is amazing. We’ve come full circle from this afternoon

I don’t know shit here and I’ve been here for nearly 2 years I’m still learning

hahaha always funny when someone doesn’t know the history of a business

I’ll admit it

and then they publicly write it

There’s a video somewhere pitching helium way before the blockchain days pitching the idea of pet rocks being connected to the internet. Was that you?

I founded helium. Not the blockchain

1

19:40

With my good buddy capcom and Mr. Fanning.

19:40

https://youtu.be/Y7CCtnLs2VE

Hardwired NYC

Sean Carey, Helium // Hardwired NYC #10 // May 2014 (Hosted by Firs...

1

2

Sean | BlockJoy

With my good buddy capcom and Mr. Fanning.

I was under the impression that Cap Frank and Fanning started helium

1

Here’s an 8 year old video of my beautiful big ass talking all about it.

But I’m glad to learn something new, thank you

Carry on

Sean | BlockJoy

https://youtu.be/Y7CCtnLs2VE

That’s the video.

I take no claim to fame on the chain. That was all professor and capcom and whoever else

2

Kennyy - 😎

I was under the impression that Cap Frank and Fanning started helium

No Frank Mong turned down the job at Helium. Then said fuck it you like video games, I like video games, sign me up. (edited)

2

Little known fact I did hire professor. We worked at Basho together

19:43

And Phark

Don’t wanna be a spoilsport here, but would y’all mind moving this to #general?

1

3

Now I’m just the guy that gets to shoot his mouth off and not get a Forbes article written about it

2

1

ferebee

Don’t wanna be a spoilsport here, but would y’all mind moving this to #general?

Yessir I’m done.

1

Back to the HIP, Ferebee, what are your thoughts?

Max - Just Max

Back to the HIP, Ferebee, what are your thoughts?

So anyway

what formula do you propose for the DAO Utility Score? Are you proposing to keep the Score from HIP-51? Remember that nobody has paid those $400,000 for the existing MOBILE Hotspots. I tried to negotiate to get people to pay them, but didn’t get any takers.

ferebee

So anyway

what formula do you propose for the DAO Utility Score? Are you proposing to keep the Score from HIP-51? Remember that nobody has paid those $400,000 for the existing MOBILE Hotspots. I tried to negotiate to get people to pay them, but didn’t get any takers.

Pre-Migration yes. We can keep the piece about a minimum onboard fee (I suggested higher up a halving schedule for that rather than a $5 minimum) then we make the active device score based on total number of DC burned rather than current onboard rate times number of active devices.

19:49

This was kinda ambiguous in the 51 days but I think the assert fee should count since you can’t actually mine with an IOT hotspot without burning that extra $10

Max - Just Max

Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO

I actually had this same thought while reading the hip. Will this penalize Wi-Fi Dabba to the point that they change their mind? It’s a good thought.

AndrewsMD

I actually had this same thought while reading the hip. Will this penalize Wi-Fi Dabba to the point that they change their mind? It’s a good thought.

I address that in this and the following comment: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090817919375646873

1

Sean | BlockJoy

Here’s an 8 year old video of my beautiful big ass talking all about it.

This is so cool :). What do you think. Thumbs up or down for this HiP?

ferebee

I address that in this and the following comment: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090817919375646873

Agreed.

Max - Just Max

Pre-Migration yes. We can keep the piece about a minimum onboard fee (I suggested higher up a halving schedule for that rather than a $5 minimum) then we make the active device score based on total number of DC burned rather than current onboard rate times number of active devices.

Pre-migration, there is no DAO Utility Score. It comes into play with the transition to Solana and the DAO/subDAO architecture. If you prefer to keep the HIP-51 Score, that will be the Score going forward until an alternative is proposed. That has disadvantages, as outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80. If you believe the HIP-51 Score is preferable, perhaps you can explain why based on the rough modelling in my last pinned post, or based on some other modelling? If you are suggesting a different Score, that would be easier to understand if you could state it precisely, and ideally show its advantage in a model…

20:01

Anyway, sorry, it’s 5 AM here in Frankfurt, the world’s smallest metropolis (after Helsinki, Horace tells me), and I need to get to bed. Will check up in the morning!

ferebee

Anyway, sorry, it’s 5 AM here in Frankfurt, the world’s smallest metropolis (after Helsinki, Horace tells me), and I need to get to bed. Will check up in the morning!

Sleep well. Great job once again:)

ferebee

Pre-migration, there is no DAO Utility Score. It comes into play with the transition to Solana and the DAO/subDAO architecture. If you prefer to keep the HIP-51 Score, that will be the Score going forward until an alternative is proposed. That has disadvantages, as outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80. If you believe the HIP-51 Score is preferable, perhaps you can explain why based on the rough modelling in my last pinned post, or based on some other modelling? If you are suggesting a different Score, that would be easier to understand if you could state it precisely, and ideally show its advantage in a model…

I’m saying in terms of getting something passed before migration. It doesn’t really make sense to rush this with arbitrary numbers added when we can have a ton of extra data in a month from now.

AndrewsMD

This is so cool :). What do you think. Thumbs up or down for this HiP?

Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.

3

2

Sean | BlockJoy

Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.

Do you think the floor of 50 is too high, to low, or reasonably right for a best guess?

Sean | BlockJoy

Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.

The subDAOs can choose whatever price they want under the current system. More expensive networks from a capex perspective will have no incentive to have a higher onboard fee if there is no payoff for doing so

20:04

Floor of 50 is absolutely too high

Max - Just Max

Floor of 50 is absolutely too high

I’m not convinced. Yet. I’m not ready to conclude one way or the other. Asking for opinions right now

(edited)

If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.

1

AndrewsMD

I’m not convinced. Yet. I’m not ready to conclude one way or the other. Asking for opinions right now

(edited)

We’re talking floor. It doesn’t have to be the floor but for a VPN network that is just an SD card addition, $50 is very high

Sean | BlockJoy

If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.

I’m referring to the floor of 50 for the subDAO Utility score. One moment.

Sean | BlockJoy

If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.

Oh that floor. Yea the floor is the piece I really don’t like. Shows favoritism to IOT. Much better to count the DC burn from onboarding in a bucket that every other subDAO can compete with.

What would someone in Africa pay? Blockchains for all, right. In America a salad from Panera via Uber eats is $40. So cost distortion and things are real

Max - Just Max

Oh that floor. Yea the floor is the piece I really don’t like. Shows favoritism to IOT. Much better to count the DC burn from onboarding in a bucket that every other subDAO can compete with.

I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.

1

AndrewsMD

I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.

is there any data on iot traffic these days? Not just who plugged a hotspot in?

https://etl.dewi.org/

Sorry. Deleting price talk.

20:14

Carry on.

Historical price talk is allowed

Sorry but it’s not.

More people wanted to own HNT after HIP 27 started being thown around. About 55x as much at one point

Price of what?

20:15

price of token or price of onboarding?

Sean | BlockJoy

price of token or price of onboarding?

Token

Ah shit, @Keenan is right. Past price isn’t allowed

Ohhh I must have missed

Sorry don’t mean to be a buzz kill.

My bad

All good.

Hey at least it wasn’t me

20:17

I’m trying to behave

Sean | BlockJoy

Ohhh I must have missed

But my question had nothing to do with price. It’s about how the DAO Utility score is calculated. What’s the right number? 50? 40? 60? For the IoT subDAO (edited)

AndrewsMD

I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.

To this point, shouldn’t another subDAO that puts up 1 million hotspots also get that protection even if it doesn’t have data transfer yet?

Can you explain the utility score like I’m 5?

It’s the scoring system to determine the value of each subDAO. SubDAO tokens are backed by HNT in a treasury account similar to gold backing the dollar in the boomer era

20:19

Every epoch more HNT is deposited into those treasury accounts and to the HST holders. (edited)

Yes. Each subDAO gets a prorata share of HNT distributed into their treasury. The DAO Utility score is how the pro rata fórmula is calculated.

yup got that .. so at 50 on iot

20:20

it would be 50%

Sean | BlockJoy

it would be 50%

Or 50x

so if 1HNT was emitted

20:21

and mobiles floor was 10

20:21

and iot was 50

Sean | BlockJoy

and mobiles floor was 10

Mobile’s floor is 1

I’m saying if

20:22

Mobile would be 1/5th of iot? (edited)

Yes

So it’s a weight

Yes

Mobile only gets credit for the DC usage on the network whereas IOT gets a minimum of $75,000 per month worth of data transfer even if it’s 0

1

just like you’d do in a a cdn or a load balancer

20:23

got you

The argument is IOT was first and should be protected because another subDAO is coming along and potentially burning way more DC despite not having a 3 and a half year head start

so if Toyota made an electric car that was as good or better than a Tesla. Would Teslas market share go down?

My position is that’s fine but make it fair so that if another subDAO comes along and pays onboarding fees of $50 million they should get that same protection

Max - Just Max

The argument is IOT was first and should be protected because another subDAO is coming along and potentially burning way more DC despite not having a 3 and a half year head start

Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.

AndrewsMD

Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.

This is the big question

20:26

I dream of people sending small amount of data everywhere

2

Sean | BlockJoy

so if Toyota made an electric car that was as good or better than a Tesla. Would Teslas market share go down?

Yes but in this scenario Tesla shareholders get to decide the value of Toyota’s market share

AndrewsMD

Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.

But it’s not abandoning it. There’s a BME. More DC burn is good

Max - Just Max

Yes but in this scenario Tesla shareholders get to decide the value of Toyota’s market share

Agree with you. I don’t think iot should get special treatment for being iot. But I very very much would like to see it successful

Be back in like 20 mins

Sean | BlockJoy

I dream of people sending small amount of data everywhere

Exactly. I don’t want to rip the heart out of the technology/network that takes 9 years to mature.

And I agree but at the same time, what if the growth of ankther subdao is explosive

20:29

Iot will have to give

20:29

even if it’s not what people want.

Sean | BlockJoy

even if it’s not what people want.

I’m on board. So again, what’s the right number? 50? 20? 60?

It’s a good question. Not one I should answer though. Because my stake is much higher in one of the 2. Im not sure that I could be completely unbiased.

20:34

I’d set the floor based on more than just how many devices there are

2

The floor is an artificial number and only given to one subDAO though. Really think it should just be 1. (edited)

20:48

Sorry to late night tag but you are online. @valerie is this HIP considered critical and needs to happen pre-migration or is 77 the only critical HIP remaining?

just catching up. so the number of devices no longer is in the equation and the only contention is the Floor and how long the protection lasts?

Max I understand your complaint. Having said that when hip 51 was going for a vote the iot community were reassured that their network wouldn’t be left behind, and at that point it was all of us. We wouldn’t be here without that vote. If we just let 5g takeover we will literally lose the iot network and alienate a lot of the community. You want people to unplug? I surely would and I haven’t really made much with my fleet already but I’ve hung in there we start cutting into what’s left drastically we have issues.

1

My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?

Dc burn doesn’t care about borders lol

plainsimpletech

My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?

i don't see why its relevant that 5g is limited to US.

plainsimpletech

My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?

Anything that is useful and leads to data credit spending is win win win.

Adogg

Max I understand your complaint. Having said that when hip 51 was going for a vote the iot community were reassured that their network wouldn’t be left behind, and at that point it was all of us. We wouldn’t be here without that vote. If we just let 5g takeover we will literally lose the iot network and alienate a lot of the community. You want people to unplug? I surely would and I haven’t really made much with my fleet already but I’ve hung in there we start cutting into what’s left drastically we have issues.

But also HIP-51 was supposed to go into effect in July 2022. No one thought IOT would have a further 8 months from that point with 100% of the HNT rewards.

at migration, iot is 5b and mobile is 50b

The number of DNTs emitted doesn’t matter though. Unless I’m missing something

mobile is already at a disadvantage if you consider redemption

I don't see how it matters

Brainstormer

mobile is already at a disadvantage if you consider redemption

MOBILE, or your personal wallet?

23:39

I don't see how a subDAO is at a disadvantage for having more DNT in circulation

less hnt in treasury against mobile circulating supply

1

but how is that a disadvantage for the subDAO

im not against this hip though, i think its better than 51, just not sure if the floor and the length of time

not to mention a significant chunk of that 50b is in the hands of 5g owners in the form of genesis rewards

maybe im not seeing it, but the redemption value for mobile will be lower than iot no?

yes, but that's not a disadvantage for the subDAO, that's a potential disadvantage for a MOBILE owner

i see it as a disadvantage for mobile deployers considering building the network

23:45

it's the same reason why iot hotspot owners fear that people will leave the network no?

23:46

because there's not enough incentive to stay/grow

I think the floor is there to give the 980k x $40 the value it had without this change

i think this hip solves one issue no one had an answer to, which is what do we do with the onboarding cost for mobile

Brainstormer

i see it as a disadvantage for mobile deployers considering building the network

The reason this genesis exists is to give 5g owners some rewards while doing nothing (useful), so to now turn back and use that as an argument is a bit duplicitous. Another reason why this HIP is even necessary is because noone was willing to cough up the onboarding fees

i personally would have just turn rewards off until radio owners pay for it themselves but i'm probably the minority

groot

I think the floor is there to give the 980k x $40 the value it had without this change

That’s fine but HIP-51 solved for that already

not after this HIP

Also why is IOT the only subDAO that gets to get value for onboarding devices

23:52

It’s a terribly short sighted HIP

who else onboarded any devices?

Hence the short sighted part

groot

The reason this genesis exists is to give 5g owners some rewards while doing nothing (useful), so to now turn back and use that as an argument is a bit duplicitous. Another reason why this HIP is even necessary is because noone was willing to cough up the onboarding fees

so you agree that network that do the most work should earn their fair share?

So basically one subDAO can’t figure out how to onboard their devices so we’re doing a complete overhaul?

in principle, yes, but that already went out the window with the vehnt staking

veHNT delegating is arguably the weakest of the 3 current factors

Max - Just Max

So basically one subDAO can’t figure out how to onboard their devices so we’re doing a complete overhaul?

Basically, yes. One subDAO was too cheap to pay up

I don’t actually think that’s the case though

23:55

I was told to get a HIP passed and the token burn would be taken care of

The whole onboarding fee is also a bit weird since you no longer need it for sybil resistance

i don't think mobile subdao is too cheap to pay up, it was never brought up until recently (edited)

But you need it as your fee for incubating in the helium DAO (edited)

Brainstormer

i don't think mobile subdao is too cheap to pay up, it was never brought up until recently (edited)

I heard a lot of noise from people with a lot of radios, mobile wg included that said "you can't ask that from radio owners"

23:57

I am not too sure having a $5 is a good idea because people can use Helium as an incubator and then move on, but that's another discussion

1

groot

I heard a lot of noise from people with a lot of radios, mobile wg included that said "you can't ask that from radio owners"

i have gone back and forth on it, and eventually decided that radio owners should pay. ive even had a private DM with ferebee about it

23:59

i don't believe ive ever said that we can't ask that from radio owners. i have said that about manufacturers.

Baicells sells dog shit radios that no one outside of helium wants to buy

00:00

They can pay

00:00

Like the latency on those things is awful

1

00:00

No WISP wants to work with them

as far as this hip goes, i think 50 is too much and too long.

groot

I am not too sure having a $5 is a good idea because people can use Helium as an incubator and then move on, but that's another discussion

I proposed a starting value of $40 that halves every halvening so today it’ll be $20 and then in august go down to $10

00:03

But it’s also just a minimum and we should encourage more burn. We lose that lever to encourage more burn if the devices goes away

(part of) the real reason it is apparently hard to figure out who burned and who didn't on Solana (edited)

Can you just set up a transaction that sends HNT to a burn wallet in exchange for the NFT that starts earning

I thought it would be easy, but apparently it’s not

I’ll defer to the thing I say when people say it’s not easy to do something on Solana. Sri over at Pollen figured it out and that guy was a moron

Is the issue keeping tracking of the active devices? If so, why not just drop the active part and reward subDAOs for burning HNT

Max - Just Max

Can you just set up a transaction that sends HNT to a burn wallet in exchange for the NFT that starts earning

Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer

00:55

I mean everyone pays that way, loosing rewards but it means no chasing of onboarding fees

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer

Do you wanna fire up ChatGPT to write that HIP or should I?

My name's already on a hip that'll have weeks of discourse from packet stuffers trying to get me to take it down lol

1

I’ll put my name on it and yell at people in the HIP channel if you want

1

That's already started btw the discourse from gamers

00:58

At the very start, nova didn't pay for onboarding

Thankless job writing HIPs

Much later, they burnt hnt to make up for it

00:58

Mobile could do the same

Calchip burned the HNT

Inc burnt as well I thought

I know the big burn was calchip

00:59

The OGs may have been too

Yeah

Do we care if the HNT is burned from the treasury fund or if it’s purchased and then burned? (edited)

It's just the fact it's paid for right?

There are advantages to it being purchased and burned over just burned from the treasury

Who does the purchase?

It’s more complicated for sure. I think the answer is your initial suggestion just trying to think through

01:03

Does someone have the keys to the treasury wallets to do that?

01:05

What if it costs 50% more to slash burn the onboarding

01:08

Hmmm one weakness is if someone wanted to pull a Panther X and rekey a bunch of devices you make that churn much more cost effective

Max - Just Max

Thankless job writing HIPs

Know you may not have been serious but regardless the truth is that HIP author's aren't writing HIPS for the thanks we do it to improve the network

He was serious, he knows how much grief he gives the author's

01:22

Max hates hips.. (running joke)

1

I’ve been pretty vocal in the past that HIP writing shouldn’t be unpaid

1

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Max hates hips.. (running joke)

Ironically I like both of yours

Not to sound like a broken record, but we've been discussed the need for onboarding fees, as well as the who will pay it. @Max - Just Max last we spoke about this you mentioned you have vendor contacts that you'll reach out to. Have you had a chance?

I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay

Max - Just Max

I’ve been pretty vocal in the past that HIP writing shouldn’t be unpaid

Personally, I wouldn't accept any payment for HIP-69, nor any future HIPs that I write.

Max - Just Max

Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO

How?

Max - Just Max

I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay

Agreed but I'm asking you in regards to the who should pay it part

Baicells

And FFI as well as Bobcat?

No, they did the gateways that had a $40 onboard fee

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer

so use the HNT in treasury? what would you use for the mobile protocol score for the HNT to flow into treasury ? I think this is a good idea

Max - Just Max

No, they did the gateways that had a $40 onboard fee

Then why not mosolabs?

Siegfried

How?

Because no one wants to join as a subDAO under these rules. No one wants to have another network favored and getting special treatment. I have these discussions daily

1

John Mac

Then why not mosolabs?

Them too.

Some going to flow in when data comes right? I was saying to divert x towards burn for onboarding existing

Max - Just Max

Them too.

Glad we're on the same page

We can either do 1 for the A factor until the HNT is burned or 8,300 * the onboarding fee and lock redemptions until the debt is paid

data isn't going to come in for a while

I think there should be some penalty for not getting your shit together and having to do it this way

John Mac

Personally, I wouldn't accept any payment for HIP-69, nor any future HIPs that I write.

That’s fine but plenty of Helium talent is getting poached by and paid by competitors (edited)

Max - Just Max

That’s fine but plenty of Helium talent is getting poached by and paid by competitors (edited)

I hear you on that point

9 figure businesses shouldn’t rely on volunteers to run the business IMO

does the onboarding fee for all subdaos have to be the same?

No, in fact it’s the opposite

Max - Just Max

9 figure businesses shouldn’t rely on volunteers to run the business IMO

Agreed, but way outside my scope of even knowing how to begin doing anything about it. Maybe take it up with Nova

‍♂️ (edited)

01:34

Just realized that I only have about 3 hours left to sleep before work today

@BFGNeil - Trackpac.io if you wanna do most the writing I think your idea is significantly better than HIP-80

i have a tonne on my plate, your turn

ChatGPT-4 is the way

01:36

Gn/gm

Ugh, I’ll learn markdown

for what?

Can I send you a google doc and you put it in github?

just write evrything else i can probably help you with that?

01:37

ill submit it but it can be your hip

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

for what?

Writing the hip you're discussing

Im just going to steal most of HIP-78 because that was good enough then add the part about slashing to burn

and lower the onboarding fee

Absolute nonsense and author can pull a HIP then without mentioning it once in the HIP general channel just present a new HIP on the day of the community call and basically say fuck you, vote for this HIP in the next 18 days (edited)

2

1

Max - Just Max

Im just going to steal most of HIP-78 because that was good enough then add the part about slashing to burn

If you do, please include the sqrt around veHNT in the V-factor. That's important.

Max - Just Max

I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay

So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.

1

waveform

So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.

Because HIPs are community based changes. Are you seriously saying I’m complaining, not making the HIPs better?

Max - Just Max

Because HIPs are community based changes. Are you seriously saying I’m complaining, not making the HIPs better?

In all the time you spend critiquing other HIPs you could have the one you want created.

1

I do agree, as you can see I said that to someone in general today (edited)

01:57

Before hips are submitted, discuss it in #hip-discussion (edited)

02:00

It forces you to cover everyone's points, not just your own thought chain

02:00

Elon had some great reasons against I missed on mine for example (edited)

1

I am wondering: if we need the A factor in the subDAO utility scores or a special rule for IOT in the D factor (if there is no A factor) does that mean the V component doesn't do the job it is hoped to be doing? (Which would be: being a valid indicator for future potential value of a subDAO, thus directing enough HNT to the subDAO until data revenue (= realized potential value) is high enough to sustain hardware buildout/upkeep? (edited)

02:03

Really an open question I don't have the answer for.

waveform

In all the time you spend critiquing other HIPs you could have the one you want created.

I don’t want to write a HIP. This is volunteer work for me. Other companies pay me to do their version of HIPs.

02:04

Im happy to contribute ideas and point out flaws but I don’t know how to write in markdown and I don’t care to learn

1

Just write in the format on word

02:04

You send me a block of text with none of the headings

(edited)

Like honestly, you’re going to sit there collecting a paycheck then tell people they need to do more free work?

1

Siegfried

I am wondering: if we need the A factor in the subDAO utility scores or a special rule for IOT in the D factor (if there is no A factor) does that mean the V component doesn't do the job it is hoped to be doing? (Which would be: being a valid indicator for future potential value of a subDAO, thus directing enough HNT to the subDAO until data revenue (= realized potential value) is high enough to sustain hardware buildout/upkeep? (edited)

I think the answer is we don’t know and we won’t know for a month or two until it becomes more clear how much veHNT there is and how people delegate it.

1

waveform

So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.

You’re replying to a message referencing a discussion that was had with Mobile working group and the inability to come up with a number within the group that we could then present to the community, by the way. Absolutely ridiculous I’ve been discussing this HIP and discussing better alternatives on and off for 14 hours and this is your take away.

Btw, I use that "

" button when I want to show that I have read a post (and are thankful for the answer) but can't or don't want to say whether I agree or disagree with the content. (The

risks imo additionally being potentially misinterpreted as agreement). Wonder if others read that ok button the same or as something awkward (like e.g. approval of the post). (edited)

1

Siegfried

If you do, please include the sqrt around veHNT in the V-factor. That's important.

To this point, I’m not going to touch the V-factor. I don’t know enough to say either way if we need the square root piece so I’m just going to keep all the roots the same and solve for the A issues

Max - Just Max

To this point, I’m not going to touch the V-factor. I don’t know enough to say either way if we need the square root piece so I’m just going to keep all the roots the same and solve for the A issues

Ok, I guess me and others will bring it up again, once/if we see that proposal and we all can continue the discussion then. (edited)

Brainstormer

i don't see why its relevant that 5g is limited to US.

Because there is not the equivalent mobile spectrum available in other countries.

AndrewsMD

Anything that is useful and leads to data credit spending is win win win.

Don't disagree however where it is a limited participation model due to technical regulatory restrictions across the glode then it shouldn't be that one type of network canibalises another (I realise that I am not quite stating my postion well here).

Max - Just Max

You’re replying to a message referencing a discussion that was had with Mobile working group and the inability to come up with a number within the group that we could then present to the community, by the way. Absolutely ridiculous I’ve been discussing this HIP and discussing better alternatives on and off for 14 hours and this is your take away.

Ive not been following the MOBILE PoC WG discussions for quite a while now. And I've been discussing this Score/Onboarding problem for months trying to get a resolution for MOBILE even though I have 0 investment in MOBILE. I dont have any objections to Radios being the onboardable device. But to implement that is going to require a lot of new code for hotspot makers, radio makers and blockchain devs. And a HIP that covers onboardng fee calculations that sum up rather than multiply. And someone has to agree to write all this or pay someone else to write it as its not free work.

waveform

Ive not been following the MOBILE PoC WG discussions for quite a while now. And I've been discussing this Score/Onboarding problem for months trying to get a resolution for MOBILE even though I have 0 investment in MOBILE. I dont have any objections to Radios being the onboardable device. But to implement that is going to require a lot of new code for hotspot makers, radio makers and blockchain devs. And a HIP that covers onboardng fee calculations that sum up rather than multiply. And someone has to agree to write all this or pay someone else to write it as its not free work.

Yea I hear you. Then any attempts to do anything get met with “well there’s no veMOBILE so you can’t do it.” On the code side, wouldn’t Nova take on that responsibility since they were given a grant of 15B Mobile to get the subDAO ready to go live? I can’t imagine it’s that crazy of an engineering lift if nova runs the SaS and knows which radio serial numbers are connected to which gateways. Then you just mint NFTs corresponding to the radio with a mint price equal to the onboard burn.

Max - Just Max

Yea I hear you. Then any attempts to do anything get met with “well there’s no veMOBILE so you can’t do it.” On the code side, wouldn’t Nova take on that responsibility since they were given a grant of 15B Mobile to get the subDAO ready to go live? I can’t imagine it’s that crazy of an engineering lift if nova runs the SaS and knows which radio serial numbers are connected to which gateways. Then you just mint NFTs corresponding to the radio with a mint price equal to the onboard burn.

At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.

waveform

At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.

At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee

That earned token anytime in the past or only in the (defined) recent past (="active" hotspots). I thought, the latter? (edited)

Siegfried

At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee

That earned token anytime in the past or only in the (defined) recent past (="active" hotspots). I thought, the latter? (edited)

Yeah I didnt define the period

1

waveform

At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.

Im fine with this outcome too. My biggest issue was passing a HIP with a bunch of flaws quickly so that it can be done before migration.

03:51

Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?

Max - Just Max

Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?

Part of implementation of Solana migration? (edited)

Max - Just Max

Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?

Ask Noah or Abhay for when and reason. Solana's are 2 days. He might have mentioned something in last AMA or WG call I forget but probably a programming reason.

Max - Just Max

Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?

Found it, HIP 77:

03:55

https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0077-solana-parameters.md#summary

Solana is based on 432000 slots actually, but it’s roughly 2 days.

04:07

But I think daily epochs make sense, it reduces variability and is needed for MOBILE anyway

groot

Solana is based on 432000 slots actually, but it’s roughly 2 days.

I liked that it reduced variability.

GM! I’ve only skimmed the upscroll. Sorry this HIP got posted so suddenly. Until the weekend this was going to be a revision of HIP-78. JMF’s contribution of the square root to the V factor just dropped a few days ago, and that pushed it over the edge to where Valerie decided it needs to be a new HIP entirely. The missing onboarding fees for MOBILE are what got all this started, and as @waveform says, he has been haranguing us about that since October. We’ve just all been slacking off and not doing anything about it for months, myself included. That’s why this is dropping here at the last moment. It's great people are engaged and want to contribute, but I’m not sure dueling HIPs are the most effective method. Writing a HIP is quite a lot of work, with or without ChatGPT. Why not present just the proposed alternative DAO Utility Score formula here, so we can discuss it? And it would help to have some rough modelling of the effects, like what I presented in the last pinned post. I do think the square root of the V factor (veHNT delegation) is important, as outlined. That was proposed by JMF, and let’s remember he is the one who brought us HIP-20, which is what took us to our first large-scale deployment. I haven’t seen his models in detail, but the game theory makes sense. So, I’m interested to see alternative proposals to what we put forward in HIP-80. Leaving HIP-51 as it is would be a bad choice IMO, and let’s not forget that we do need some resolution of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees. Keeping the A factor in the Score means somebody needs to pay them. Gotta run again unfortunately.

Max - Just Max

Sorry to late night tag but you are online. @valerie is this HIP considered critical and needs to happen pre-migration or is 77 the only critical HIP remaining?

i just saw this. im not sure if its critical yet. still assessing that myself. at the moment it looks like it would make more sense for it to happen prior to migration because the implementation would be easier but it looks like a change that could be made later too.

valerie

i just saw this. im not sure if its critical yet. still assessing that myself. at the moment it looks like it would make more sense for it to happen prior to migration because the implementation would be easier but it looks like a change that could be made later too.

IMO if a there is to be a change to the DAO Utility Score, we should decide it before transition if at all possible. HNT holders need to make decisions about HNT lockup ASAP in order to take advantage of the 3x landrush bonus. The Score is an important consideration for those decisions. And depending on their strategies, it could be jarring to find the Score changed later after they have already locked their positions.

1

. We’ve known about the issue of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees, which led up to HIP-78, since October. HIP-78 was predicated on the idea that somebody would pay the missing fees, but nobody has come forward, so we need an alternative solution to that. That’s how we got to HIP-80. In addition, the change to the V factor of the Score that @JMF proposed is very important to anybody considering HNT lockup. That in particular is a major reason to decide this before transition. So let’s discuss any and all proposals of how to solve the outstanding issues (see the Motivation section of HIP-80), but kicking the HIP-51 can down the road is dangerous in my view. I don’t see that other solutions are just going to appear out of thin air. I haven’t seen JMF’s modelling yet, but I trust him if he says the existing Score from HIP-51 risks flatlining an otherwise productive subDAO because of misaligned incentives.

It’s just difficult to not go the competing HIP route when suggestions are being made and ignored

Max - Just Max

It’s just difficult to not go the competing HIP route when suggestions are being made and ignored

I was out of the channel last night. I re-read things earlier, but I didn’t really pick up a concrete suggestion. Can you ELI5 what alternative Score you are proposing?

1

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

10:34

Solves the most pressing issue of MOBILE and finds a payer. We can always tweak the V score if it’s an issue in the real world.

Max - Just Max

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

I don’t understand how it’s the same Score if you change the definition of the A factor. (edited)

It’s still VDA

10:36

But otherwise, no it’s not the same score. The A definition changes

ferebee

IMO if a there is to be a change to the DAO Utility Score, we should decide it before transition if at all possible. HNT holders need to make decisions about HNT lockup ASAP in order to take advantage of the 3x landrush bonus. The Score is an important consideration for those decisions. And depending on their strategies, it could be jarring to find the Score changed later after they have already locked their positions.

Yes, if it influences how much HNT to lock-up for how long. Not sure if changes in the subDAO utility score affect this much though, as it affects distribution between subDAOs and delegation percentages of veHNT can be changed every epoch accordingly. Am in favor to have this implemented before the transition if it can be done safely in the time remaining. (edited)

Max - Just Max

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

You talking about both subDAOs here for $20 now?

Max - Just Max

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

Could you present the actual complete definition? I’m not sure I understand your suggestion.

waveform

You talking about both subDAOs here for $20 now?

That’s just the minimum. IOT can stay at $40 if they want. It’ll be $10 by August though

ferebee

Could you present the actual complete definition? I’m not sure I understand your suggestion.

A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.

It sounds like to intend to count location assertion fees (“reasserts”). That’s a change from HIP-51, right, or do you interpret HIP-51 to include location assertion fees in the A factor?

ferebee

It sounds like to intend to count location assertion fees (“reasserts”). That’s a change from HIP-51, right, or do you interpret HIP-51 to include location assertion fees in the A factor?

Some do, some dont

‍♂️

I think 51 is pretty ambiguous. Some of the calcs referenced $50 per device and others referenced $40

10:40

I’d argue you need $50 worth of burn for an IOT hotspot to earn so I personally feel it should count

Max - Just Max

A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.

Even in the hypothetical case that all devices did go offline right after paying their fees? (Meaning: activity/inactivity being irrelevant for your suggestion?)

1

I understand that scenario could potentially exist but they burned the HNT so yes

Max - Just Max

A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.

So as Siegfried says, this would change the definition from “active Hotspots” to “total historical Hotspots”. Correct? Taking the count for IOT from 400,000 to 1,000,000. Right?

Yes

Are you counting that as a linear factor? You didn’t mention the fourth root.

I’ve been told it’s a huge engineering lift to associate onboard costs with single hotspots then calculate if they are online or not.

ferebee

Are you counting that as a linear factor? You didn’t mention the fourth root.

Still a fourth root. Sorry, that’s the piece about calc stays the same, could have been more clear.

Max - Just Max

A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.

This would change the A from a calculated number to a historical summed number - needs a database table

Isn’t that significantly easier than constantly calculating?

Max - Just Max

I’ve been told it’s a huge engineering lift to associate onboard costs with single hotspots then calculate if they are online or not.

Correct. The current implementation is not able to calculate different onboarding fees for each active Hotspot. Known quantities are number of active Hotspots and of course what onboarding fees were charged at various times.

10:44

How do you count Data-Only Hotspots? Their onboarding fee is $10.

By the amount burned so $10

ferebee

Correct. The current implementation is not able to calculate different onboarding fees for each active Hotspot. Known quantities are number of active Hotspots and of course what onboarding fees were charged at various times.

There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var

10:45

Data Onlys are wrongly counted at $40 at moment, not $10

As happy as I am about HNT/DC burn, HNT/DC burn in itself it is not valuable, as far as I can see. We want to incentivice the buildout of useful/valuable coverage. Wouldn't that encompass somehow taking in account how many devices are active? (Mind: I tend to be in favor for dropping the A term completely, as I don't say what exactly it is incentivizing. Happy to learn, though.) I understand that the V factor measures expectations/estimates of total value (current and future, not yet realized) of what a subDAO is offering, and the D factor realized current utility/value of a subDAO. Only if that is somehow not a valid measure of utility / misses something that should be measured / incentivize the full realization of a subDAOs potential value, would I say that we need another factor in the formula. Is this the case? And if yes, why? (edited)

We can’t tally up the amount spent by maker wallets?

waveform

There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var

you would have to make a data crawler to go back and find all the fees and then constantly scan periodically

waveform

There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var

Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?

Siegfried

As happy as I am about HNT/DC burn, HNT/DC burn in itself it is not valuable, as far as I can see. We want to incentivice the buildout of useful/valuable coverage. Wouldn't that encompass somehow taking in account how many devices are active? (Mind: I tend to be in favor for dropping the A term completely, as I don't say what exactly it is incentivizing. Happy to learn, though.) I understand that the V factor measures expectations/estimates of total value (current and future, not yet realized) of what a subDAO is offering, and the D factor realized current utility/value of a subDAO. Only if that is somehow not a valid measure of utility / misses something that should be measured / incentivize the full realization of a subDAOs potential value, would I say that we need another factor in the formula. Is this the case? And if yes, why? (edited)

the only other reasoning for this is to stop bad faith DAO's in the future

ferebee

Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?

Not my suggestion so cant answer

1

Max - Just Max

We can’t tally up the amount spent by maker wallets?

We could, but how do we tie up what came out of a maker wallet with the 44% of online hotspots

gateholder

the only other reasoning for this is to stop bad faith DAO's in the future

Can you help me understand why this risk exists and why/how an onboarding fee would stop this?

ferebee

Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?

Just to be clear, not a proposed halvening of onboard fees, halvening of minimum onboarding fees

10:50

I’m also not married to that idea. Just figured it fit to have some reason determining the minimum

Max - Just Max

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

So how does this solve the problem that MOBILE has not paid any fees to onboard its existing Hotspots?

Slash em

What does that mean?

When iot launched nova didn't pay fees they burnt it later, slash rewards to the dao until the amount is covered I think is what max is suggesting

1

Siegfried

Can you help me understand why this risk exists and why/how an onboarding fee would stop this?

I am not the origin of this but basically if there were no fees you could game the score by essentially just pumping data through you self taking the hnt that comes from the score calculation and steal possible a significant portion of the emissions

"Slashing” normally means to take away tokens that are in an account. So I’m uncertain what is being proposed.

From the mobile treasury, slash until minimum is covered

ferebee

So how does this solve the problem that MOBILE has not paid any fees to onboard its existing Hotspots?

It doesn't, I guess, but it could be combined with the suggestion of BFGNeil to let the subDAO treasury pay the missing fees if one would want to go that way (not saying I would or wouldnt)? (edited)

ferebee

"Slashing” normally means to take away tokens that are in an account. So I’m uncertain what is being proposed.

Ya I like the idea of bonding a certain amount like 3 x emmisions? which would be about 150k HNT and hope that auditing would catch it quickly

The existing implementation does not actually implement slashing. That was not considered to be a priority item. So we couldn’t actually slash now. I presume a slashing function needs to pass audit, etc. So that is not an immediate option.

We never built a slashing function? That’s like the one thing HeliumDAO can do to keep subDAOs in line

It is thought that they won’t dance out of line until later.

So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing

10:59

Lol

gateholder

I am not the origin of this but basically if there were no fees you could game the score by essentially just pumping data through you self taking the hnt that comes from the score calculation and steal possible a significant portion of the emissions

Even if that kind of gaming worked (not sure it does, don't understand the mechanics enough atm), not sure if needing to pay onboarding fee really helped with that. Wouldn't it just set the threshold higher above which it would be lucrative?

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing

Mapper DAO has entered the chat

1

2

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing

Quite true! OTOH I imagine it would take a good while to implement a subDAO. Perhaps slashing can be built by then.

In the meantime can’t some reserve be built in that effectively locks that amount of HNT

My suggestion this morning was if the onboarding fees are an issue (seems like no one wants to pay) take it from the subdaos treasury seems to be an option

Max - Just Max

In the meantime can’t some reserve be built in that effectively locks that amount of HNT

It sounds like you’re proposing some core smart contract functionality. Best ask Noah whether that’s practical.

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

My suggestion this morning was if the onboarding fees are an issue (seems like no one wants to pay) take it from the subdaos treasury seems to be an option

Also if I were a participant in MOBILE I don’t think I’d like that. You could also just say I may not participate until I backpay the fees. The effect is similar.

1

I kinda thought of it not like taking all rewards but x of what was coming in to go towards it until it's clear

valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/30/2023 11:27 AM

ferebee

It sounds like you’re proposing some core smart contract functionality. Best ask Noah whether that’s practical.

The network can’t operate based on “ask the firm that Helium Foundation acquired if they can be bothered to do it”

12:38

Beyond the scope of this HIP but that shouldn’t be how it operates

12:40

We wouldn’t need a that to be implement via smart contract for MOBILE. Foundation should still hold enough MOBILE to have the same effect

Would it be possible to identify a diversity analysis of hexes (accumulating to diversity of total network) for DC burned, coverage asserted or verified, and such to influence this utility score? Plus a decaying launch curve to temporarily boost subDAO launches?

12:57

The metric I have difficulty with is device count... Not sure of the utility of a count. It's a metric, but I don't feel it's a metric that has enough weight to it. (edited)

Better to think of the metric as a DC burn for onboarding metric.

Hence why proven coverage (aided by DC burn evident in that hex) would help the scoring.

I don’t think Helium DAO should get that granular with what the subDAOs do

Max - Just Max

Better to think of the metric as a DC burn for onboarding metric.

That's just potential of utility, potential of coverage, etc.

It’s basically a way to reward capex before there is revenue

13:00

Assuming subDAOs use onboarding fees as a reasonable proxy for capex

13:00

The A incentives them to do that

Max - Just Max

I don’t think Helium DAO should get that granular with what the subDAOs do

If all tokens go back to HNT, I would say there's a dependence there that is necessary for the integrity of the entire system.

13:02

Hrm... Device onboarding rate might be a good metric to pull into that decaying launch support curve. (edited)

13:07

What does DNP stand for?

Decentralised network protocol

1

EdB-charlietango

If all tokens go back to HNT, I would say there's a dependence there that is necessary for the integrity of the entire system.

Disagree. Helium DAO cares about token burn, facilitating token burn, and being the police of subDAO wide gaming.

13:21

Solana doesnt meddle in the affairs of SPLs, for example

Max - Just Max

Disagree. Helium DAO cares about token burn, facilitating token burn, and being the police of subDAO wide gaming.

You just agreed with me. We said the same thing.

Max - Just Max

It’s basically a way to reward capex before there is revenue

I thought about this last night. Slept on it even. About giving the IoT subDAO a chance to survive. When HIP51 was passed, this was the promise and intended plan, that IoT would initially get the lionshare of initial HNT into their treasury. The HIP passed with the communities approval. I conclude that giving them some protection is the right thing to do. No rug pull. I'm on board for the 50 floor for IoT. (edited)

1

13:46

It further communicates that we are not abandoning IoT.

AndrewsMD

I thought about this last night. Slept on it even. About giving the IoT subDAO a chance to survive. When HIP51 was passed, this was the promise and intended plan, that IoT would initially get the lionshare of initial HNT into their treasury. The HIP passed with the communities approval. I conclude that giving them some protection is the right thing to do. No rug pull. I'm on board for the 50 floor for IoT. (edited)

The HIP passed a year ago and in that time IOT got 100% of the rewards. How long of a runway does it need? Also in that time IOTEX launched a similar model and has upwards of 15 projects that could have been subDAOs moving over there.

In my home, I truly try to keep my word. Even if that word was given a year ago.

Do you want more HNT or more dollars?

I stand opposed to changing what was promised to the community. We don't rug pull here.

Max - Just Max

Do you want more HNT or more dollars?

Everyone wants to moon. It is projected that Mobile will reach an equivalent DAO utility score in no time. Right?

We have no idea what MOBILE will do

we change things all the time, that's what hips are for (edited)

1

Max - Just Max

We have no idea what MOBILE will do

lifetime Price fixation for beta rollout seems pretty attractive to me.

i agree that IoT needs to have some sort of protection, but im at odds with the floor and the length of time

Updating the A score as I proposed protects the DC burn the IOT has already done but also gives new subDAOs the ability to compete on a level playing field

i'm also worried that Mobile subdao will die before it has a chance to get off the ground. we want to build the network to bring in the HNT but the hnt emission might be a turn off for builders

Also let’s not forget like 60% of the HNT that will ever exist was emitted to LoRaWAN people.

13:56

It’s a completely different landscape than it was when 51 was proposed. Projects we thought would be knocking down the door to get into the helium ecosystem aren’t.

From what I can see, the number of crypto projects being launched in general is down, perhaps due to the current bear market.

DePIN space is booming, many are in stealth or 6 months out from their TGE but they are there and none are choosing Helium

14:33

Literally what I do for a living is working with early stage projects trying to disrupt a web2 industry using web3.

14:35

To be fair, I don't know if the proposals I've laid out are going to be enough to move the needle enough for them to want to join Helium as a subDAO but the feedback on worries about the main DAO having too much overreach is pretty standard feedback when it gets discussed

Max - Just Max

Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.

So let me try to summarize Max’ proposal, as I want to make sure I’m following correctly. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091051599197114378 and the following discussion. It would use a Score that is similar to the Score defined in HIP-51, except that the A factor is different. The A factor of a subDAO would be the fourth root of the sum of all onboarding and location assertion (and similar) fees burned by the subDAO. So, as a change from HIP-51, it counts Hotspots which are offline, or roughly 1,000,000 Hotspots in IOT rather than 400,000 Hotspots per HIP-51. It counts location assertion fees as well, providing an additional advantage to IOT compared to HIP-51. It also avoids certain implementation difficulties of HIP-51 related to different onboarding fees, such as $10 Data-Only Hotspots, assuming it is practical to keep a running score of onboarding fees. (I’d suggest discussing that with Noah.) However, the 10,000 existing MOBILE Hotspots still haven’t burned any onboarding fees, so the A factor for MOBILE still launches at 1. One approach for obtaining the missing onboarding fees that has been proposed would be for the Helium DAO to slash them from the MOBILE treasury, which would affect both current and future MOBILE Hotspot owners equally. However, that won’t be possible right away, as it would require new smart contracts, which would have to pass audit, and also slashing itself is not implemented yet. So the postpayment of the missing onboarding fees for MOBILE would be delayed, and the A factor of MOBILE would remain at 1 (except as additional new Hotspots are onboarded) until some later date. The in the V factor, which JMF has proposed should urgently be changed to a square root of delegated veHNT, would remain a linear factor, which could dominate the Score of one subDAO with a single large delegation.

The only thing I'd add is if the subDAO has to be slashed to onboard, there is a penalty levied against that subDAO. Also a minimum onboard fee would be set. I've proposed $40 retroactive to August 1, 2019 with a halvening every 2 years. That would put the current fee at $20 and reduced to $10 on August 1, 2023. (edited)

15:00

On the fence if we want MOBILE to start with an A score of 1 or if we want to assume $20 per radio then slash after the fact. There is precedent for LoRa operating with a retroactive payment of DC so I think its fine to assume the HNT has been burned as of the go live date.

It’s not clear to me what advantages theses change provides over the new, simpler DAO Utility Score proposed in HIP-80, and how it is better to keep the old V factor instead of changing to the new one advocated by @JMF. It would be good to see some modeling, similar to the rough example in my pinned post here, that would let us compare the results. Given the argument that Max’ proposal might be advantageous to new subDAOs, it would be good to see that modeled as well.

Max - Just Max

The only thing I'd add is if the subDAO has to be slashed to onboard, there is a penalty levied against that subDAO. Also a minimum onboard fee would be set. I've proposed $40 retroactive to August 1, 2019 with a halvening every 2 years. That would put the current fee at $20 and reduced to $10 on August 1, 2023. (edited)

I don’t understand the first sentence.

I have no strong opinion on the V factor. Interested to see JMF's model but I think we can sit back and see what the amount of veHNT that gets delegated will be before we jump to change it

ferebee

I don’t understand the first sentence.

If a subDAO has to have its treasury fund slashed to pay for the onboarding, it should be done at a rate of 150% of the onboard value. ie, if MOBILE decides $50 then $75 worth of HNT gets slashed for each radio. if MOBILE doesn't make a decision $30 per radio gets slashed ($20 minimum times 50%) but the subdao doesn't get credit for its penalty burn.

ferebee

It’s not clear to me what advantages theses change provides over the new, simpler DAO Utility Score proposed in HIP-80, and how it is better to keep the old V factor instead of changing to the new one advocated by @JMF. It would be good to see some modeling, similar to the rough example in my pinned post here, that would let us compare the results. Given the argument that Max’ proposal might be advantageous to new subDAOs, it would be good to see that modeled as well.

We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.

Max - Just Max

I have no strong opinion on the V factor. Interested to see JMF's model but I think we can sit back and see what the amount of veHNT that gets delegated will be before we jump to change it

Changing the V factor after the end of landrush is a big issue for those who have locked their HNT for this purpose. That should be settled before landrush begins.

ferebee

Changing the V factor after the end of landrush is a big issue for those who have locked their HNT for this purpose. That should be settled before landrush begins.

2nd that we can not change things after the fact thats like tilting the field

You still get 6% of the DNTs regardless of the amount of HNT in the treasury

Max - Just Max

We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.

That’s confusing IMO. And remember that we don’t have the ability to slash at all now..

Max - Just Max

You still get 6% of the DNTs regardless of the amount of HNT in the treasury

I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.

How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays

ferebee

I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.

thats illegal in most causes for businesses

Max - Just Max

We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.

Ill just point to my reasoning on that here. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090810097732702268

ferebee

I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.

Its not different than changing the DAO utility score in any other way

Max - Just Max

How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays

not many people understand these functions the point is to make it simple enough that people aren't confused about what they do and what they get

Yea, i disagree with your "founders bonus" when 5G news drove the economic build out of LoRa

Max - Just Max

How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays

It’s not “the same”, it’s different. As an example, it completely changes the incentives around locking a significant portion of total HNT supply in order to be able to dominate the Score.

thats not what capex is

Max - Just Max

Its not different than changing the DAO utility score in any other way

Exactly. Which is why I believe it would be good to decide these things before transition. (Speaking to the question @valerie is considering whether this is an “urgent” matter.)

1

If a network puts out $1B worth of hardware and burns $100M of HNT to onboard those devices, is that not valuable?

15:13

Why would any subDAO pay more than the minimum to onboard if there is no incentive to do it?

gateholder

not many people understand these functions the point is to make it simple enough that people aren't confused about what they do and what they get

which people are you referring to?

Sorry, I have to go now. Will check in again tomorrow morning. Let me say that if you would like to propose a different Score than what @rawrmaan, JMF and I are proposing in HIP-80, I do suggest you provide some modeled results, and explain how the numbers support your proposal. I really don’t see yet what advantages your proposal has. It is, however, a lot more complicated, and depends on several things (such as new smart contracts and slashing) that aren’t currently available.

Max - Just Max

which people are you referring to?

users and stakers

ferebee

Sorry, I have to go now. Will check in again tomorrow morning. Let me say that if you would like to propose a different Score than what @rawrmaan, JMF and I are proposing in HIP-80, I do suggest you provide some modeled results, and explain how the numbers support your proposal. I really don’t see yet what advantages your proposal has. It is, however, a lot more complicated, and depends on several things (such as new smart contracts and slashing) that aren’t currently available.

I don't understand how you are missing the fact that no one will want to join a network if there is blatant favortism towards another business. My proposal is more fair and based on DC burn rather than putting a finger in the wind and deciding $75,000 feels like a good number and 2027 seems like a good year

gateholder

users and stakers

users?

15:25

I’m also very confused on the reasoning to rush the update to V score. You say JMF says it’s imperative but you haven’t seen the models. Is the expectation that I commit to including the change to V score without seeing any data suggesting it’s a problem?

Oh having vehnt being linear is pretty noticeable even in devnet. veHNT decides what goes to each subdao far more than anything else

16:07

So much so that it could be a risk that everyone just piles on vehnt to a single subdao that already has the most vehnt

16:08

I've done some back of the napkin modeling myself and I agree with JMF's evaluation that it is imperative. At least that we look at it again. End of the day, I just implement what the DAO wants. But it's good to flag things that may be concerning.

It’s gotta hit some level of diminishing returns though if you’re limited to 6% of the DNT

Right, I don't think it causes heaps more people to delegate that wouldn't have otherwise. I think it just causes delegators to always choose the subdao with highest delegation. Which isn't what you want (probably)?

I would think if a large percentage of veHNT goes to one subDAO there’s incentive to delegate towards the other subDAOs to get a bigger percent of those other DNT pools

n_

Right, I don't think it causes heaps more people to delegate that wouldn't have otherwise. I think it just causes delegators to always choose the subdao with highest delegation. Which isn't what you want (probably)?

right you don't want to have the ship sink problem there need to be equilibrium thats simple by just having 6% of rewards and then a significant level of rewards going to that sub DAO

If it’s a huge gaming vector we can always fix it. We have the solution ready to go and just rush it to vote

I don't think it's that simple. Once the formula is out there and active, changing it is going to be very hard because it likely favors one group over another. And the group in favor is going to vote very hard against change.

16:13

Much better we get it right, or as close as possible to right, the first time.

that’s kinda the point of veHNT though. If you vote against the best interest of HNT everyone else can exit before you can

n_

Much better we get it right, or as close as possible to right, the first time.

I am worried that there will be a problem because mobile at first wont be moving data which means that it will be quite low at first for quite some time

Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).

1

n_

Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).

I always favor simplicity

n_

Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).

So I guess what will become 81, uses DC burn as the deciding factor for devices. Clears up all of the ambiguity and creates an even playing field for new subDAOs rather than using arbitrary values that favors one subDAO (edited)

@ferebee @JMF . Throwing an idea out there. When we were first considering HIP51, we considered an award bucket to encourage new subDAOs to join. What if we consider a time limited floor of say 25 to be given to any new subDAOs upon entrance into the Helium ecosystem? We could say, IoT got a floor of 50, because they were first, but all future ones can get a 25 floor for 4 years. Is this a crazy thought? Some claim that other projects are not excited to join Helium, . . .might that entice them? (edited)

16:29

One could claim that it is equivalent to them, meaning the future additional subDAO, since the Mobile subDAO didn't accept a floor. (edited)

I’ll make so many subDAOs if I can get a floor of $37k/month for 4 years for each of them (edited)

Max - Just Max

I’ll make so many subDAOs if I can get a floor of $37k/month for 4 years for each of them (edited)

Gotta be voted in though right?

1

AndrewsMD

Gotta be voted in though right?

Oh I can get so many shitty DePIN projects with no path to actual revenue to collect its HNT in exchange for nothing

16:34

The value LoRa added was the $500M in DC burn. That’s what we want to reward. Not being first

Max - Just Max

Oh I can get so many shitty DePIN projects with no path to actual revenue to collect its HNT in exchange for nothing

Do you have any thoughts on how to make it work? Try wearing a different hat for just a moment. I'm just throwing an idea out there.

AndrewsMD

@ferebee @JMF . Throwing an idea out there. When we were first considering HIP51, we considered an award bucket to encourage new subDAOs to join. What if we consider a time limited floor of say 25 to be given to any new subDAOs upon entrance into the Helium ecosystem? We could say, IoT got a floor of 50, because they were first, but all future ones can get a 25 floor for 4 years. Is this a crazy thought? Some claim that other projects are not excited to join Helium, . . .might that entice them? (edited)

well the floor is one off idea not sure that should happen but I am trying to imagine coming up with a new subdao and simulating wht happens

AndrewsMD

Do you have any thoughts on how to make it work? Try wearing a different hat for just a moment. I'm just throwing an idea out there.

Like how to make the gaming the system work? Just collect the HNT into the treasury fund because of the boosted rewards then exchange the DNTs you invented for the HNT, rinse and repeat across multiple industries

Max - Just Max

Like how to make the gaming the system work? Just collect the HNT into the treasury fund because of the boosted rewards then exchange the DNTs you invented for the HNT, rinse and repeat across multiple industries

Wrong hat Max. lol. Gotta take a step back sometimes and look at things from different angles. Try thinking, . . . knowing that the risk of gaming is there, how do I prevent bad actors from taking advantage of this incentive? For example, they could post up some cash for the option of having a floor. Only to be released upon making their numbers. I'm not saying that this is the right way to go, . . . its just a thought exercise for now.

AndrewsMD

Wrong hat Max. lol. Gotta take a step back sometimes and look at things from different angles. Try thinking, . . . knowing that the risk of gaming is there, how do I prevent bad actors from taking advantage of this incentive? For example, they could post up some cash for the option of having a floor. Only to be released upon making their numbers. I'm not saying that this is the right way to go, . . . its just a thought exercise for now.

Oh you prevent it by not having a floor and having a factor based on DC burn for onboarding devices. This fluctuates with the price of HNT but you likely don’t receive back more HNT than you burn with a device score rather than a data transfer floor.

Max - Just Max

Oh you prevent it by not having a floor and having a factor based on DC burn for onboarding devices. This fluctuates with the price of HNT but you likely don’t receive back more HNT than you burn with a device score rather than a data transfer floor.

Its all good. Everyone will not agree all the time, and not everyone sees things through one lens. For example, you think there should be no floor at all, . . . others disagree. That's what governance is about right?

Should focus on what people agree on, the floor or counting DC burn is all about protecting iot like promised when sold subdaos

2

16:59

How it's done is up to interpretation

I have to say @Max - Just Max I am having a hard time getting past your argument that DC burn is the cost of receiving initial stimulus as a subDAO. I think in this HIP we don't really have a mechanism for stimulating a subDAO that's "just starting up". It's important that we reflect on whether we're just trying to solve the present MOBILE vs IOT situation (which I think we certainly are trying to do) or whether we're thinking longer-term about how to make Helium DAO attractive to newcomers. At least when DC burn is part of the equation, we have a mechanism for stimulating upstarts, in a way where they also have to bring something tangible to the table. It's a fair proposition where both parties stand to benefit. I do fear we've lost that with our changes here, and I don't know how to correct for it with the new formula, other than just setting an arbitrary floor for every new subDAO, which feels suboptimal as the subDAO doesn't have to bring anything to the table. I'd love to hear @JMF's thoughts on this as he was always a strong proponent of a "bootstrap allocation" in early iterations of HIP 51. He recognized the importance of providing stimulus to new subDAOs. (edited)

2

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Should focus on what people agree on, the floor or counting DC burn is all about protecting iot like promised when sold subdaos

Strong agree here. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091100887134511304

n_

Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).

On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded

17:09

For mobile subDAO, simply grandfather in $40 x num devices onboarded

rawrmaan

I have to say @Max - Just Max I am having a hard time getting past your argument that DC burn is the cost of receiving initial stimulus as a subDAO. I think in this HIP we don't really have a mechanism for stimulating a subDAO that's "just starting up". It's important that we reflect on whether we're just trying to solve the present MOBILE vs IOT situation (which I think we certainly are trying to do) or whether we're thinking longer-term about how to make Helium DAO attractive to newcomers. At least when DC burn is part of the equation, we have a mechanism for stimulating upstarts, in a way where they also have to bring something tangible to the table. It's a fair proposition where both parties stand to benefit. I do fear we've lost that with our changes here, and I don't know how to correct for it with the new formula, other than just setting an arbitrary floor for every new subDAO, which feels suboptimal as the subDAO doesn't have to bring anything to the table. I'd love to hear @JMF's thoughts on this as he was always a strong proponent of a "bootstrap allocation" in early iterations of HIP 51. He recognized the importance of providing stimulus to new subDAOs. (edited)

That was an a response to an offshoot idea of giving everyone a DC burn floor. Disregard that argument

17:25

I believe we get the jumpstart effect from the V score. There is an incentive to delegate towards new subDAOs because you can get a large percentage of that 6% bucket

1

17:27

Then to add to Arman’s point on the mobile subDAO, if that $40 isn’t burned, just slash it from the treasury. Easy peasy

Max - Just Max

I believe we get the jumpstart effect from the V score. There is an incentive to delegate towards new subDAOs because you can get a large percentage of that 6% bucket

Right ok, this is the correct argument I was not able to get to in my head, thanks.

Max - Just Max

Then to add to Arman’s point on the mobile subDAO, if that $40 isn’t burned, just slash it from the treasury. Easy peasy

Still not sure I understand this point, though. Why do an extra symbolic action that would require more code (and thus possible bugs) when we could just grandfather in the previously onboarded hotspots

rawrmaan

On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded

Active devices has to be an oracle.

rawrmaan

On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded

But yes this is correct if we are summing onboarding fees rather than doing them by actives. But 1) someone has to write a query that goes back and finds out historically what each device pays. And 2) it’s an extra smart contract endpoint since data credits contract needs to cpi to sub DAOs contract. And 3) that probably needs to be audited as it’s a non trivial change

rawrmaan

Still not sure I understand this point, though. Why do an extra symbolic action that would require more code (and thus possible bugs) when we could just grandfather in the previously onboarded hotspots

There was a retroactive burn in the past. It’s not unprecedented. It’s like 250,000 HNT, not a trivial amount (edited)

n_

But yes this is correct if we are summing onboarding fees rather than doing them by actives. But 1) someone has to write a query that goes back and finds out historically what each device pays. And 2) it’s an extra smart contract endpoint since data credits contract needs to cpi to sub DAOs contract. And 3) that probably needs to be audited as it’s a non trivial change

We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)

Max - Just Max

We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)

Counting all DC burn instead of just onboarding kind of incentivizes subDAOs to create arbitrary burns to juice the score

rawrmaan

Counting all DC burn instead of just onboarding kind of incentivizes subDAOs to create arbitrary burns to juice the score

So does fake data transfer. It should be a net negative or in extreme cases arbitraged out of the system

Max - Just Max

We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)

Didn’t onboarding fee get changed?

No. There was a HIP changing reassert fee. Data only hotspots are $10